NTJ is believed to have split from Sri Lanka Thowheed Jamath (SLTJ), another hardline group. SLTJ’s leader Abdul Razik was arrested in 2016.

NTJ is being considered as a fringe group of the minority Muslim community which constitutes only 9.7 percent of Sri Lankan population.

The island has been witnessing sweeping anti-Muslim bigotry mainly fed by majority Buddhist nationalists but it never had a history of Mulsim militants.

Investigators said seven suicide bombers took part in the attacks while a government spokesman said an international network was involved.

Police had received a tip-off of a possible attack on churches by a little-known domestic Islamist group some 10 days ago, according to a document seen by Reuters.

The intelligence report, dated April 11 said a foreign intelligence agency had warned authorities of possible attacks on churches by the leader of the group, the National Thawheed Jama’ut. It was not immediately clear what action, if any, was taken to address the reported threat.

Police said 24 people had been arrested, all of whom were Sri Lankan, but they gave no more details. “Still the investigations are going on,” Welianga said.

Cabinet spokesman Rajitha Senaratne said an international network was involved but did not elaborate. “We do not believe these attacks were carried out by a group of people who were confined to this country,” Senaratne said. “There was an international network without which these attacks could not have succeeded.”

Sri Lanka invoked emergency law which gives police and the military extensive powers to detain and interrogate suspects without court orders, which will go into effect at midnight Monday, the president’s office said.

Colombo, the seaside capital of the Indian Ocean island, was jittery on Monday. Police said 87 bomb detonators were found at the city’s main bus station, while an explosive went off near a church where scores were killed Sunday when bomb squad officials were trying to defuse it.

A night curfew will go into effect at 8 p.m., the government announced.

President Maithripala Sirisena said in a statement the government would seek foreign assistance to track the overseas links.

There were fears the attacks could spark communal violence, with police reporting late Sunday there had been a petrol bomb attack on a mosque in the northwest and arson attacks on two shops owned by Muslims in the west.

Sirisena fired the premier last year and installed opposition strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa in his stead. Weeks later, he was forced to re-instate Wickremesinghe because of pressure from the Supreme Court but their relationship is still fraught as a presidential election nears.

NOVANEWS

“The death penalty has been implemented on a series of culprits for the adoption of extremist terrorist ideologies and the formation of terrorist cells to corrupt and disrupt security and to spread chaos and provoke sectarian conflicts,” the official agency said of the Saudi press (ZPS) citing a statement issued by the ministry.

Amnesty International said the execution marked an alarming escalation in the use of the death penalty by the Saudi regime. “Today’s mass execution is a chilling demonstration of the senseless contempt of the Saudi authorities for human life. It is also the umpteenth gruesome indication of how the death penalty is used as a political tool to crush dissent within the country’s Shia minority, “said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s director of Middle East research.

Most of those executed were Shiite men who were sentenced after fictitious trials that violated international fair trial standards and relied on confessions extracted through torture . Among those executed was Abdulkareem al-Hawaj – a young Shiite arrested at the age of 16 and convicted of crimes related to his involvement in anti-government protests.

#SaudiCrimes: two Saudi activists Martyred Abdullah Al-Asiri and Martyred Hussain who were unjustly executed for participating in marches for demanding the legitimate basic rights. #Qatif May allah grant peace to all departed souls

According to Amnesty International, families were not informed in advance of the executions and were shocked to learn the news. “The use of the sentence is even more shocking when it is applied after unfair trials or against people who were under 18 at the time of the crime, in flagrant violation of international law, “ said Maalouf.“Instead of accelerating executions at an alarming rate in the name of fighting terrorism , Saudi Arabia must immediately stop this bloody execution and establish an official moratorium on executions as a first step towards the complete abolition of the death penalty,” he added. Lynn Maalouf.

#SaudiCrimes Martyred Sheikh Mohammed Attiyah was Dean of English at a prominent university in KSA. He was accused of “passing military information” to Iran! (How an English professor would get any military info is mystery) His other “crime” are seeking to sabotage, & inciting

This year, at least 104 people were executed by Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime – at least 44 of them are foreign nationals, most of whom were found guilty of drug-related crimes. In 2018, Saudi Arabia carried out 149 executions.

Despite strong political disagreements, the two presidents will hold meetings covering health agreements, gas contracts, the delivery of military aircraft, the 2030 World Cup and migration questions.

“The agenda of issues is extensive,” Argentina’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The meeting will be held at the Pink House, and then the two presidents will move to the El Palomar air base so that the Bolivian president can see the FADEA Pampa plane that Argentina will deliver to his country as part of a gas contract.

In February, the two nations renegotiated a key gas import contract that changes prices and volumes of Bolivia’s exports to Argentina. The adjustment, which changes the schedule in deliveries so that Argentina receives less gas in times of lower consumption, will mean a savings of US$460 million for Argentina.

The presidents will discuss social health challenges to resolve the payment of health services that non-resident immigrants from Bolivia use in Argentina to cure chronic diseases, pregnancies or highly complex operations. Argentine Secretary of Health Adolfo Rubinstein, traveled last month to the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra to monitor the negotiations.

Argentine and Bolivia are also going to analyze the opportunity to incorporate Bolivia into the 2030 World Cup bid that Macri already shares with Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay.

Finally, Evo Morales and Mauricio Macri will discuss regional issues such as Venezuela situation on which they strongly disagree. Macri was one of the first political representatives to recognize opposition lawmaker Juan Guaido, as “interim president” of the country while Evo Morales reaffirmed his government’s support for the democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro.

NOVANEWS

A woman casts her vote during the referendum on draft constitutional amendments, at a polling station in Cairo, Egypt April 20, 2019 | Photo: Reutrers

“Egypt has eliminated the opposition; it’s an environment of repression and fear,” said Mohamad Elmasry, professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies.

About 61 million Egyptians began to vote on Saturday in a three-day constitutional referendum, from April 19 to April 22, that would allow President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi to stay in power until 2030 and acquire more controls over the national army.

Egyptians are being asked to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a package of amendments Saturday, some of which would allow el-Sissi to extend his current mandate until 2024 and then rerun for another six-year term that would end in 2030. For the fourth time in eight years, Egyptians go to polling stations to vote on the constitution.

Since el-Sissi was re-elected President in 2018, under conditions that did not allow for any serious opposition, the question arose of a future amendment of the constitution to enable him to remain in power beyond his second term. The constitution adopted by a referendum in 2014 following teh fall of longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak, stipulates that the president can only be elected for two four-year terms, which would have seen el-Sissi leaving the presidency in 2022.

The revised Constitution gives the president powers that risk undermining judicial and prosecutorial independence. Indeed, according to the Article 185, the President will preside over the Supreme Council of the Judiciary and may appoint the presidents of the leading courts as well as the Attorney General and the President of the High Constitutional Court.

It establishes a chamber of 180 members in which one-third of the members are appointed by president, according to articles 248, 250 and 253. Other amendments reduce the number of deputies in the Assembly and impose a quota of 25% of women.

The modification of the new Constitution also expands military powers.

An army soldier gestures as people stand in line to cast their vote during the referendum on draft constitutional amendments, at a polling station in Cairo, Egypt April 20, 2019/Reuters

Human rights defenders expressed their concerns about legal changes.

“These amendments aim to smother Egyptians’ aspirations to live in dignity and under the rule of law,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should immediately halt efforts to pass these amendments by threatening, disappearing, and persecuting peaceful critics and dissidents.”

“I think you have to take votes that are held in military dictatorships with several grains of salt,” said Mohamad Elmasry, associate professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies to Al-Jazeera network. “Egypt has eliminated the opposition; it’s an environment of repression and fear. People are terrified to vote and express dissent.”

Elmasry added that “in the lead-up to this vote, more than 120 people have been arrested for campaigning for the ‘no vote.’ We have to remember there are no independent monitors, so the government is free to rig the results.”

The final results will be announced on April 27. The authorities have given no participation figures so far.

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egypt Votes on Final Day of Referendum Seeking to Bolster el-Sissi’s Powers

NOVANEWS

Poster showing late Cuban President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul hangs inside a subsidised state store, in Havana. | Photo: Reuters

Although this article was published in the original Spanish version last March, now that Julian Assange is in prison the analysis in this piece on “freedom of expression” is even more valid.

There is a wide-open debate/polemic in Cuba regarding Decree 349 on culture and the drafting of the rules for its future application. The controversy is also stirring on the international scene, especially in North America, Europe and Latin America.

There are those who are in favor of the new code. Others are critical, and indeed some of these are very critical, but they are participating in the Ministry of Culture-led consultation to draft the enabling regulations. There are others who are completely against the new legislation and its regulations, even while the consultations with people in the cultural field are still under way.

However, they are trying to influence the situation in Cuba and, as discussed below, this orientation is widely inspired by the U.S. The method employed is the usual disinformation campaign. It hopes to capitalize on preconceived notions such as the catch-all American “freedom of expression” mantra as applied to political systems in countries other than the U.S. This is nothing new, but there is a novel twist.

It is now applied to artistic endeavours. The campaign targets the sector of the Cuban society dedicated to culture, hoping to win over who those who critically support the new statute in order to create division among individuals involved in culture. Be that as it may, this article deals only with the extremist opponents to the legislation and regulations, both in Cuba and internationally, especially in the United States.

Careful reading of a wide, representative spectrum of opposition articles, social media posts and comments reveals a common point of reference. The U.S. Embassy in Havana tweeted in favour of “artistic freedom” with a very undiplomatic slogan: “No to Decree 349.” The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs recently stated that the “Gov[ernmen]t of Cuba should celebrate, not restrain, the artistic expression of Cuban people.” Among the shades of “left,” “centrist” and openly right-wing hard-core opposition, including some academics, a common thread stands out.

The U.S. Takes the Moral High Road of Freedom of Artistic Expression – for Cuba
Whether in Cuba or the U.S., the fundamentalist opposition takes the moral high road of “freedom of artistic expression” for Cuba. However, they are viewing Cuba with U.S. blinders. They take it as a given that in the U.S., there is freedom of artistic expression (along with other types of expression) in the cultural realm. The logic goes that there are no cultural restrictions in the U.S. like the ones being brought in in Cuba.

Furthermore, according to these talking points, there is no Ministry of Culture in the U.S. that would control and guide cultural expressions in that country. The U.S.-centric outlook insinuates, either openly or covertly, that everyone in the U.S. is free to express their artistic talents. The United States is presented as the cultural model for the world, in the same way that it boasts about other features of its society, such as its economy and political process. Many people around the world, and in the U.S. itself, are all too familiar with the U.S. superiority complex. This built-in psyche finds its origins in the “chosen people” notion emerging from the very birth of the U.S. at the time of the Thirteen Colonies in the seventeenth century.

For someone who comes from the Global North and has direct experience of American mainstream artistic expression, such as music, it is obvious that what sells is what is promoted. If the elites can successfully market banality, sex, and violence, then so be it. Profit is the only criterion. Those very few artists who are willing and able (because of their physical appearance above all) to compete in this market are highly rewarded. They then pay back their sponsors by standing out explicitly or implicitly as the expressions of the American Dream come true. Furthermore, U.S.-style extreme individualism is paraded as a value to be worshipped, to which social and international concerns must be completely sacrificed. In sum, the fairy tale narrative pretends that anyone from the slums of America can make it.

However, this process is presented as being spontaneous, without the state’s involvement. It is supposedly the law of supply and demand as applied to the arts. The rationale of the “invisible hand” of capitalism determines what is appropriate in the artistic realm.
Can culture be considered just another commodity?

In the course of social media interaction during the December 8, 2018 Cuban TV Mesa Redonda program, Fernando Rojas, one of Cuba’s vice-ministers of culture, retweeted and commented on one of my tweets. He mentioned UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the U.S. position counterposing this agreement to the free market.

“UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity: U.S. equated freedom of expression with the dictates of a “free market in art…”] Arnold August @Arnold_August: In capitalist countries such as the U.S. and Canada….]”

An investigation ensued, as I was not sufficiently familiar with this controversy. In 2000 in Paris, UNESCO adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. It stipulates that culture is not just another a commodity and recognizes the sovereign right of states to promote and protect their tangible and intangible cultural production, using the measures they deem appropriate. The convention allows states to protect their cultural creation. The U.S. opposed it, claiming to promote true cultural diversity by working for individual liberties, so that everyone has “cultural freedom” and can enjoy his own cultural expressions, not those imposed by governments. But the convention was adopted by a vote of 148 to 2. Guess which countries opposed it? The U.S. and Israel.

Should each country have the right to defend its own culture?

Looking at this superficially, it may seem that that the U.S. government does not impose any norms on culture. Indeed, as “freedom of artistic expression” is assured only in the U.S. (and in Israel), according to this tale, once again the U.S. has the “burden” of exercising its role as the chosen people responsible for teaching everyone on the planet about culture, as it does for democracy and human rights. In fact, taking a page out of that literary classic the Bible (let’s give credit where credit is due), the U.S. has evolved as a “city set upon the hill” to which everyone in the world must look for guidance. Thus, goes the logic, it is all the other countries of the world, except for the U.S. and Israel, who are the violators of artistic freedom.

However, in opposing the Convention’s attempt to save artists’ creative activity from market values by emphasizing the government’s role as a protector of culture, the question arises as to the role played by the U.S. government in this sphere. By default, and by its own admission (as indicated above), in pleading for the supremacy of the market under the guise of “individual freedom” in Paris, one can conclude that the U.S. model imposes the capitalist market as the overriding norm for artists.

Thus, the U.S. government not only protects the market economy within its own country, but by opposing the sovereign right of other countries to form shields to defend a traditional, healthy culture, Washington’s position also constitutes a road map for the U.S. to extend its cultural tentacles into other countries. This is something that we in Canada are very aware of. UNESCO’s defense of sovereign the right to protect and promote cultural production was probably something that irked Washington in Paris in 2005.

Some history

To better grasp the issue, a look at the underlying historical context is warranted. Culture, on a par with economic expansion and military and ideological warfare, is part of the U.S. imperialist goal of world domination, irrespective of who occupies the White House. Let us recall Frances Stoner Saunders’s groundbreaking book Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, first published in English in 1999, then in Spanish in 2001 under the title La CIA y la Guerra Fría Cultural. The book presents a detailed report on the methods whereby the CIA influenced a wide range of intellectuals and cultural organizations during the Cold War.

Since then, and in the wake of similar revelations occurring both before and after Saunders’s book, the U.S. has had to adopt a more subtle way to influence events. It has since funnelled support through front groups not openly tied to the CIA. For example, American journalist and U.S. democracy promotion expert Tracey Eaton, in his December 2018 report, wrote that “over the past three decades, the U.S. government has spent more than $1 billion for broadcasting to Cuba and for democracy programs on the island.”

Democracy promotion, free expression and individual rights are so all-inclusive that that they encompass the cultural issue, which is even listed as one of the goals of this funding. Furthermore, if one clicks on the links to the activities of the front groups, such as the one with the innocent-sounding title “Observa Cuba,” one finds this: “Artists stage four-day sit-down at Culture against 349.”

Now, this is not to say that all or most of the hard-line opponents to 349 are financially linked to the United States. That would be an unfair assertion. However, living just about in the belly of the beast, we know that one cannot have illusions about U.S. foreign policy. The situation is admittedly very complex. For example, one of the most prominent critics of 349, Silvio Rodríguez, drew a clean line of demarcation between critics such as himself, who are participating in drafting the regulations to the law, and the position of the U.S. Embassy and its acolytes.

“I do not believe that they care about Cuban artists. However, they do care about basing themselves on our possible errors in order to confuse. The ideological war is looking to be less and less in black and white.”

This situation calls for serious reflection and research before writing, while at the same time seeing the urgency and duty to deal with the disinformation campaign led by the West.

Thus, it was of great help to get the December 16, 2018 “Postcard from Cuba,” circulated by American journalist Karen Wald, who has five decades of experience with Cuba. She writes from Havana with regard to her initial investigation on the controversy over 349: “My guess is that some of what’s behind this [opposition to 349] may be the fact that lots of pseudo ‘artists’ of all kinds make up a strong component of what the U.S. extols as ‘dissidence’ here… Most of those ‘dissident artists’ reported in U.S. press aren’t even known here…”

It seems to me that Cuba not only has every right to defend its culture and the process that is involved in working out its policy, but also that if it does not, it will sink. According to Fidel Castro, culture is the nation’s shield, and is therefore the first thing that must be saved in order to guarantee the progress of the revolutionary process.

The manner in which the U.S. and the hard-line opponents in Cuba, the United States, Europe, and Latin America are zeroing in on 349 and the government officials involved is an indication that culture is indeed a shield to defend the Cuban Revolution. It is a sine qua non if the Revolution is to continue along the path it has followed for 60 years. The U.S. and its allies know full well that the preferred weapon for subverting the Revolution is the cultural war in the wide sense of the term, including ideological, political, and artistic aspects.

Thus, we can see the hollowness of the “invisible hand of the market.” Let us give the last word to Samir Amin, the outstanding Egyptian-French scholar, who recently passed away. He produced a long-standing analysis of how the state in capitalist countries, such as the U.S. far from letting the free market take its course, has a direct hand in its operation. We saw this with the U.S. position on the Convention on Cultural Diversity and we are seeing it again as the empire strives to punch holes in Cuba’s cultural shield. Amin wrote that, when necessary, the “visible fist” helps the “invisible hand” of the free market.

Posted in USAComments Off on Politics of Culture in US: ‘The Invisible Hand of the Market’?

It is now incumbent on the international community to break this vicious Israeli cycle and support the Palestinian people in their ongoing struggle against Israeli occupation, racism and apartheid.

So, what have we learned from the Israeli legislative elections on April 9?

A whole lot.

To start with, don’t let such references as the “tight race” between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his main rival, Benny Gantz, fool you.

Yes, Israelis are divided on some issues that are particular to their social and economic makeup. But they are also resolutely unified around the issue that should concern us most: the continued subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Indeed, ‘tight race’, or not, Israel has voted to cement Apartheid, support the ongoing annexation of the Occupied West Bank, and carry on with the Gaza siege.

In the aftermath of the elections, Netanyahu emerged even more powerful; his Likud party has won the elections with 36 seats, followed by Gantz’s Kahol Lavan (Blue and White) with 35 seats.

Gantz, the rising star in Israeli politics was branded throughout the campaign as a centrist politician, a designation that tossed a lifeline to the vanquished Israeli ‘left’ – of which not much is left anyway.

This branding helped sustain a short-lived illusion that there is an Israeli alternative to Netanyahu’s extremist right-wing camp.

But there was never any evidence to suggest that Gantz would have been any better as far as ending the Israeli occupation, dismantling the Apartheid regime and parting ways with the country’s predominantly racist discourse.

In fact, the opposite is true.

Gantz has repeatedly criticized Netanyahu for supposedly being too soft on Gaza, promising to rain yet more death and destruction on an a region that, according to the United Nations, will be unlivable by 2020.

A series of videos, dubbed “Only the Strong Survives”, were issued by the Gantz campaign in the run up to the elections. In the footage, Gantz was portrayed as the national savior, who had killed many Palestinians while serving as the army’s chief of staff between 2011 and 2015.

Gantz is particularly proud of being partly responsible for bombing Gaza “back to the stone age.”

It apparently mattered little to Israeli centrists and the remnants of the left that in the 2014 Israeli war on Gaza, dubbed Operation “Protective Edge”, over 2,200 Palestinians were killed and over 11,000 were injured. In that most tragic war, over 500 Palestinian children were killed, and much of Gaza’s already ailing infrastructure was destroyed.

But then again, why vote for Gantz when Netanyahu and his right-wing extremist camp are getting the job done?

Sadly, Netanyahu’s future coalition is likely to be even more extreme than the previous one.

Moreover, thanks to new possible alliances, Netanyahu will most likely free himselfof burdensome allies, the likes of former Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

One significant change in the likely makeup of the Israeli right is the absence of such domineering figures, who, aside from Lieberman also include former Education Minister, Naftali Bennett and former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked.

All the grandstanding from Bennett and Shaked, who had recently established a new party called “The New Right”, didn’t even garner them enough votes to reach the threshold required to win a single seat in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. They needed 3.25 percent of the vote, but only achieved 3.22 percent. They are both out.

The defeat of the infamous duo is quite revealing: the symbols of Israel’s extreme right no longer meet the expectations of Israel’s extremist constituencies.

Now the stage is wide open for the ultra-orthodox parties, Shas, which now has eight seats, and United Torah Judaism, with seven seats to help define the new normal in Israel.

The Israeli left – if it was ever deserving of the name – received a final blow; the once prominent Labor Party, won merely six seats.

On the other hand, Arab parties that ran in the 2015 elections under the united banner of the “Joint List”, fragmented once more, to collectively achieve only 10 seats.

Their loss of three seats, compared to the previous elections, can be partly blamed on factional and personal agendas. But, that is hardly enough to explain the massive drop in Arab voter participation in the elections: 48 percent compared to 68 percent in 2015.

This record low participation can only be explained through the racist ‘Nation State Law”, which was passed by the right-wing-dominated Knesset on July 19, 2018. The new Basic Law, declared Israel as the “nation-state of the Jewish people” everywhere, relegating the rights of the Palestinian people, their history, culture and language, while elevating everything Jewish, making self-determination in the state an exclusive right for Jews only.

This trend is likely to continue, as Israel’s political institutions no longer offer even a symbolic margin for true democracy and fair representation.

But perhaps the most important lesson that we can learn in the aftermath of these elections is that in today’s Israel, military occupation and apartheid have been internalized and normalized as uncontested realities, unworthy of national debate. This in particular should summon our immediate attention.

During election campaigns, no major party spoke about peace, let alone provided a comprehensive vision for achieving it. No leading politician called for the dismantling of the illegal Jewish settlements that have been erected on Palestinian land in violation of international law.

More importantly and tellingly, no one spoke of a two-state solution.

As far as Israelis are concerned, the two-state solution is dead. While this is also true for many Palestinians, the Israeli alternative is hardly co-existence in one democratic secular state. The Israeli alternative is Apartheid.

Netanyahu and his future government coalition of like-minded extremists are now armed with an unmistakably popular mandate to fulfill all of their electoral promises, including the annexation of the West Bank.

Moreover, with an emboldened and empowered right-wing coalition, we are also likely to witness a major escalation in violence against Gaza this coming summer.

Considering all of this, we must understand that Israel’s illegal policies in Palestine cannot and will not be challenged from within Israeli society.

Challenging and ending the Israeli occupation and dismantling Apartheid can only happen through internal Palestinian resistance and external pressure that is centered around the strategy of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

It is now incumbent on the international community to break this vicious Israeli cycle and support the Palestinian people in their ongoing struggle against Israeli occupation, racism and apartheid.

During his regular Sunday school lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter revealed that he had recently spoken with President Donald Trump about China. Carter, 94, said Trump was worried about China’s growing economy and expressed concern that “China is getting ahead of us.”

Carter, who normalized diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing in 1979, said he told Trump that much of China’s success was due to its peaceful foreign policy.

“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None, and we have stayed at war.” While it is true that China’s last major war — an invasion of Vietnam — occurred in 1979, its People’s Liberation Army pounded border regions of Vietnam with artillery and its navy battled its Vietnamese counterpart in the 1980s. Since then, however, China has been at peace with its neighbors and the world.

Carter then said the U.S. has been at peace for only 16 of its 242 years as a nation. Counting wars, military attacks and military occupations, there have actually only been five years of peace in US history — 1976, the last year of the Gerald Ford administration and 1977-80, the entirety of Carter’s presidency. Carter then referred to the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to “adopt our American principles.”

China’s peace dividend has allowed and enhanced its economic growth, Carter said. “How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” he asked. China has around 18,000 miles (29,000 km) of high speed rail lines while the US has “wasted, I think, $3 trillion” on military spending. According to a November 2018 study by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, the US has spent $5.9 trillion waging war in Iraq,

Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations since 2001.

“It’s more than you can imagine,” Carter said of U.S. war spending. “China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.”

“And I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure you’d probably have $2 trillion leftover,” Carter told his congregation. “We’d have high-speed railroad. We’d have bridges that aren’t collapsing, we’d have roads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong.”

While there is a prevalent belief in the United States that the country almost always wages war for noble purposes and in defense of freedom, global public opinion and facts paint a very different picture. Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll identified the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, and a 2017 Pew Research poll found that a record number of people in 30 surveyed nations viewed US power and influence as a “major threat.”

The U.S. has also invaded or bombed dozens of countries and supported nearly every single right-wing dictatorship in the world since the end of World War II. It has overthrown or attempted to overthrow dozens of foreign governments since 1949 and has actively sought to crush nearly every single people’s liberation movement over that same period. It has also meddled in scores of elections, in countries that are allies and adversaries alike.

Brett Wilkins is an independent journalist and activist based in San Francisco. His work, which covers issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com.

Posted in USAComments Off on Carter Lectures Trump: US Is ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’

NOVANEWS

Below is a list, in reverse chronological order, of Zionist and Palestinians killed by someone from the other side since the Second Intifada began in 2000.* Click on the names for more details, photos and sources.

NOVANEWS

Senator Bernie Sanders speaking at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire on Monday, April, 22, 2019.

Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told a room full of students last night during CNN’s marathon town hall in New Hampshire that Israel is headed by a “racist government,” and vowed to “level the playing field” between disparate American support for Israel and the Palestinians.

When asked how he will maintain a strong alliance with Israel despite his past criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was reelected to a fifth term earlier this month, Sanders said his longstanding support of Israel, which included a stint living on a Kibbutz in the 1960s, is separate from his view of the current administration.

“I am not anti-Israel, but the fact of the matter is that Netanyahu is a right-wing politician who I think is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly,” he said.

Later in his response he said Israel “is now run by a right-wing–dare I say–racist government.”

Israel is the largest recipient of United States aid since the end of World War II. Currently the U.S. gives Israel $3.8 billion a year in aid, of which $3.3 billion goes to military financing and $500 million supports a missile defense system.

In contrast the Trump administration suspended all U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority last February. The measure followed a steady deterioration of relations with Ramallah after the U.S. embassy was moved to Jerusalem, and an end to U.S. funding to UNRWA, the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees. In recent years UNRWA funding exceeded $1 billion per year, a majority of which went to gender based violence programs.

The Palestinian Authority had received a total of $5 billion in aid from the U.S. since it was established in 1994.

Mehdi Hasan

✔@mehdirhasan

On CNN, @SenSanders calls the Netanyahu government in Israel a “right wing, dare I say it, racist” government. Imagine what the first official meeting at the White House between a President Sanders and Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2021 would be like #CNNTownHall

Pres Obama did not like Bibi Netanyahu (it was mutual, to be sure). He did not like his policies.
He dealt with him professionally.@SenSanders will take the White House, if he does, having pretty off-handedly branded PM of Israel “a racist.”

.@BernieSanders just called the Israeli gov “right wing and racist”. Not only is that bogus, but this self-loathing Jew who’s trying to score points with antisemites is empowering racists and bigots like @Ilhan and @RashidaTlaib in doing so

Bernie = danger for the U.S. & Israel

Bernie Sanders

✔@BernieSanders

Starting soon: tune in at 9 p.m. ET to watch our CNN town hall in New Hampshire. #SandersTownHallhttps://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1120458521903009793 …

Last week freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) raised conditioning U.S. aid to Israel in an interview with the Skullduggery podcast. “I think it is certainly on the table. I think it’s something that can be discussed,” she said. Ocasio-Cortez also criticized Netanyahu as “a Trump-like figure” who is part of the “ascent of authoritarianism across the world.”

Sanders was less explicit. “The United States gives billions of dollar in military aid to Israel,” he said, “what I believe is not radical. I just believe that the United States should deal with the Middle East on a level playing field basis, which the goal must be to try to bring people together and not just support one country.”

“I am 100 percent pro-Israel, Israel has every right in the world to exist, and to exist in peace and security and not be subjected to terrorist attacks,” he said, “but the United States needs to deal not just with Israel but with the Palestinian people as well.”

Sanders, who is Jewish, is the only presidential candidate who has resided in Israel and has relatives living there.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Bernie Sanders at CNN town hall: ‘Israel is run by a racist government’

NOVANEWS

The two children were burned to death in a fire at their home after Nazi army blocks fire brigade

Two Palestinian children have been killed in a blaze at their home in occupied Hebron after the Nazi Gestapo prevented the fire brigade from reaching them in time.

The two children – one of whom is believed to have been just 18-months old – were burned to death in a fire at their home in the Al-Salaymeh neighbourhood of Hebron’s Old City in the occupied West Bank. One was reported dead late last night, while the second succumbed to the burns received this morning after receiving emergency treatment at the nearby Hebron government hospital. A third child, thought to be the dead children’s brother, also suffered severe burns in the incident and remains in intensive care, according to hospital Director Dr Walid Zalloum.

The names of the three children have not been released formally, but Palestinian news site Palestine Today named the two who were killed as four-year-old Wael Al-Rajabi and his 18-month-old sister Malik. The local police spokesman, Colonel Loai Arziqat, confirmed in a press statement that two children had died, but did not offer further information.

Though the emergency services were called, the fire brigade was prevented from reaching the scene by Nazi soldiers. In a video filmed last night at 21:50 local time (19:50 GMT), the fire engine can be seen trying to drive down a narrow street. The truck comes to a stop at a road block obstructing the way, while local residents implore the Israeli soldiers stationed there to “open the gate quickly, for the children.”

Nazi soldiers, however, did not yield to the onlookers’ pleas, delaying the emergency services’ response and preventing them from reaching the property. The cause of the fire remains unknown.

Nazi army is no stranger to restricting emergency services’ access to Palestinians in need. According to Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), citing the Palestine Red Crescent Society, since 2015 Nazi regime has prevented ambulances from crossing checkpoints on 123 occasions. In addition, there were 386 attacks against Red Crescent teams across the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) during the same period, as well as 105 ambulances damaged.

In December, Nazi soldiers shot a Palestinian child then prevented him from receiving potentially life-saving medical treatment; he died soon thereafter. Seventeen-year-old Mahmoud Nakhle was shot as Nazi forces suppressed protests around Al-Jalazun refugee camp near Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank. A few minutes later, the soldiers chased off a Palestinian ambulance, threatening the driver with their rifles and not giving Nakhle first aid themselves. Only after a quarter of an hour did the soldiers allow an ambulance to be summoned, but Nakhle died en route to hospital.

Palestinian children were killed in a blaze at their home after Nazi army prevented the fire brigade from reaching them in time in Hebron, West Bank

Under international law, as the occupying power Nazi regime is forbidden from preventing access to medical care and emergency services to the people living under its occupation. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.” In addition, “Personnel of the International Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities.” Nazi, however, continues to breach this and other articles of international laws and conventions with impunity.